Bye bye, thanks for commenting on the poster! Sorry that the definition of forthrightly doesn't happen to mean what you think it does. Hope you enjoy dismissing a half dozen sources, hell, entire books, as "unable to answer" becase you don't like them. Thanks for calling my 2006 book old while citing your 1990 weekly periodical lamentation as a rebuttal.

BTW, if this place is a boneyard, it is because of the guys who spam the threads with "arguments" like those that "Here's a guy barfing picture", "Here's a picture of Prince", "I think you are this is a hate crime because this reminds me of Logan's Run.", "I don't like your sources, your books, your links, your information, your conclusion and thus you are wrong times 50, and "gee this place just sucks now that the mods won't let us spam the place with great rebuttals like 'damn are you a lying fucktard who should die.' "

But is that picture right? Yes and no. America does have an aging population, and a responsible government would take preparatory action while the baby boomers are still in the labor force. America also has very serious long-run fiscal problems. But these issues aren't nearly as closely linked as much of the discussion would lead you to believe. The view of demography as destiny is only a half-truth, and in some ways it's as damaging as a lie.

In this essay I'll try to set the record straight. Unfortunately, I can't do that by following Kotlikoff and Burns closely. Kotlikoff is a fine economist, one of the world's leading experts on long-run fiscal issues. His book with Burns is full of valuable information and sharp insights. Yet in their effort to grab the lay reader's attention, Kotlikoff and Burns do little to alert readers to the distinction between two quite different issues--an aging population and rising spending on health care. And their failure to make that distinction grossly distorts their discussion.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this because of his age but hey I allowed your ad from amazon . com which basically listed a source twice and the other questionable places you get your info!

By the way according to that ad your book was published in 2004! That makes it 5 years old.

Quote:

Publisher: The MIT Press (March 1, 2004)

The rest of the " conclusions " in your argument are really your own invention.

No wonder no one wants to talk to you.

Congrats to you and yours on being a means to an end.

Oh god! Your private line ( Bat phone ) must be ringing ( I just saw you show up on " Currently viewing " while posting this )!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I've never claimed all the experts agree. Thanks for disproving no one.

Quote:

I'm sure you'll dismiss this because of his age but hey I allowed your ad from amazon . com which basically listed a source twice and the other questionable places you get your info!

By the way according to that ad your book was published in 2004! That makes it 5 years old.

The rest of the " conclusions " in your argument are really your own invention.

No wonder no one wants to talk to you.

Congrats to you and yours on being a means to an end.

Oh god! Your private line ( Bat phone ) must be ringing ( I just saw you show up on " Currently viewing " while posting this )!

You'll have to pardon me if I ignore your personal bullshit.

Quote:

But is that picture right? Yes and no. America does have an aging population, and a responsible government would take preparatory action while the baby boomers are still in the labor force. America also has very serious long-run fiscal problems. But these issues aren't nearly as closely linked as much of the discussion would lead you to believe. The view of demography as destiny is only a half-truth, and in some ways it's as damaging as a lie.

In this essay I'll try to set the record straight. Unfortunately, I can't do that by following Kotlikoff and Burns closely. Kotlikoff is a fine economist, one of the world's leading experts on long-run fiscal issues. His book with Burns is full of valuable information and sharp insights. Yet in their effort to grab the lay reader's attention, Kotlikoff and Burns do little to alert readers to the distinction between two quite different issues--an aging population and rising spending on health care. And their failure to make that distinction grossly distorts their discussion.

Krugman makes a critical error in reasoning here. The distinction is not something related to Kotlikoff or Burns data but with the programs themselves. The reason the projected problems with Social Security are smaller is because the benefit to be paid out for recipients is defined. You start taking your benefits and aside from increases for inflation, it stays the same.

Meanwhile health care costs are the great unknown. This is especially true as we increasingly see people pushing quality of life issues as health issues.

Let's see what he hits next...

Quote:

The demographic problem is, of course, real. It is, however, of manageable size--exaggerating the problem by confounding it with the problem of medical costs just gets in the way of dealing with it. The problem posed by rising medical costs, on the other hand, would be there even if the population weren't aging--and misrepresenting the problem as one of demography gets in the way of confronting it.

This is a bit of strange reasoning, but given the initial claim, it is understandable. He wants to politely discredit the source since the data is irrefutable. The claim is that the rising medical costs would be there even if the population were aging and that is patently untrue. Medicare is set to explode because of the boomers entering retirement age. The fact that it will explode disproportionate to Social Security is not unrelated to age being a factor but due to the benefit being unlimited and undefined rather than defined as Social Security happens to be. If you find a doctor who will declare you need a quadruple bypass and two hip replacements, it will get paid for by the government. You cannot find anyone who can demand you get disproportionate Social Security payments or have them adjusted.

The demographic problem is "manageable" with Social Security because Social Security is RATIONED. Medicare is not rationed. Declaring that demography will lead to even more problems with unrationed medical care is not mistating the problem, rather the opposite.

Quote:

Yes and no. America does have an aging population, and a responsible government would take preparatory action while the baby boomers are still in the labor force. America also has very serious long-run fiscal problems. But these issues aren't nearly as closely linked as much of the discussion would lead you to believe. The view of demography as destiny is only a half-truth, and in some ways it's as damaging as a lie.

The responsible government has not taken prepatory action. Instead they have run trillions in debt and are tacking on trillions more. The half-truth with regard to demography is the belief that boomers can do whatever they want and then when they are retired or dying, force their children, grandchildren and immigrants to honor their debts. Krugman and Roubini both have this view that none of the spending or dollar creation will cause inflation because it is being done with debt instead of merely the printing press.

Their "blindspot" is that the kids and grandkids will honor the debt. They won't, more like cannot honor the debt. Estimates are that it would require between high 60's to low 80's percent of their income in taxes. No one is going to give 68-83% of everything they earn to Grandpa and the government. Grandma and Grandpa Boomer will be in their walkers trying to shake their canes at the kids and tell them the debt must be honored, especially since inflation crushes the value of pensions and 401k's turned into annuities. The kids will look at them, and simply say "Fuck you Grandpa, I wasn't the one who ran the $20 trillion plus debt or the additional trillions in liabilities." They will then turn on the printing presses and monetize(print) away the problem. The alternative is to actually agree to give up all that confiscatory taxation with no complaint. The blindspot believes that since they have controlled everything their entire lives, boomers will be able to pull this off even as they near their deathbed or perhaps even from beyond it.

The procedure to help one see past their blindspot is generational accounting. It is what Kotlikoff and Burns spend the entire book creating and explaining. For example the Social Security Trust fund holds nothing but intergovernmental debt. It is an accounting trick that would make Enron proud and would cause any corporation to be indicted. When the boomers begin retiring this accounting trick goes away to the tune of half a trillion a year and again, the presumption is just that the younger generation will just take it. Raise your taxes half a trillion and provide half a trillion less in spending or benefits, and no complaints or qualms will be raised. That is nonsense.

Think I'm lying? Krugman bangs the blindspot right here....

Quote:

If all this seems metaphysical, let's put it this way: What will actually happen when payroll tax receipts no longer cover 100 percent of benefits? The answer, quite clearly, is nothing.

There are only two ways Social Security could be unable to pay full benefits in 2018. One would be if Congress voted specifically to repudiate the Social Security trust fund, that is, not to pay interest or principal on the trust fund's bonds, which would in effect be a decision not to honor debts to retirees. In 2018 the payments on the trust fund's bonds would be sufficient to cover Social Security benefits. Repudiation of those payments is pretty much inconceivable as a political matter; writing in the periodical The Economists' Voice, David Kaiser of the National War College suggests that such a repudiation might even violate the Constitution. In that sense, the trust fund is as real an obligation of the US government as bonds held by Japanese pension funds. The other way would be if the United States found itself in a general fiscal crisis, unable to honor any of its debt. Given the size of the current deficit and the prospect that the deficit will get much bigger over time, that could happen. But it won't happen because of Social Security, which is a much smaller factor in projected deficits than either tax cuts or rising Medicare spending.

The summation of above. The only way it doesn't happen is if the kids don't pay and we've made it really, really clear they better pay. To whom is that repudiation inconceivable? The boomers with their blindspot. To everyone who is not a boomer the repudiation of the values of the boomers and leaving them the consequences of their own decisions and actions is very much conceivable. In fact the most appropriate phrase would be, "bet on it!"

The bursting succession of bubbles from internet stocks, real estate, commodities are all basically the boomers placing bets that the rules and reality won't come home to roost.(The internet changes the stock market forever, home values never go down) They've been wrong everytime. After those bets turned out badly, the boomers declared it would be okay because the corporations placing the bets were "too big to fail." We now know that is a lie so they have swept all their delusions up into one final bet where they have gone all in.

The last institution "too big to fail", why the U.S. government and the almighty dollar it manages as a reserve currency.

You can guarantee this bet will turn out like all the others. Generational accounting says you can count on it.

I've never claimed all the experts agree. Thanks for disproving no one.

You'll have to pardon me if I ignore your personal bullshit.

Krugman makes a critical error in reasoning here. The distinction is not something related to Kotlikoff or Burns data but with the programs themselves. The reason the projected problems with Social Security are smaller is because the benefit to be paid out for recipients is defined. You start taking your benefits and aside from increases for inflation, it stays the same.

Meanwhile health care costs are the great unknown. This is especially true as we increasingly see people pushing quality of life issues as health issues.

Let's see what he hits next...

This is a bit of strange reasoning, but given the initial claim, it is understandable. He wants to politely discredit the source since the data is irrefutable. The claim is that the rising medical costs would be there even if the population were aging and that is patently untrue. Medicare is set to explode because of the boomers entering retirement age. The fact that it will explode disproportionate to Social Security is not unrelated to age being a factor but due to the benefit being unlimited and undefined rather than defined as Social Security happens to be. If you find a doctor who will declare you need a quadruple bypass and two hip replacements, it will get paid for by the government. You cannot find anyone who can demand you get disproportionate Social Security payments or have them adjusted.

The demographic problem is "manageable" with Social Security because Social Security is RATIONED. Medicare is not rationed. Declaring that demography will lead to even more problems with unrationed medical care is not mistating the problem, rather the opposite.

The responsible government has not taken prepatory action. Instead they have run trillions in debt and are tacking on trillions more. The half-truth with regard to demography is the belief that boomers can do whatever they want and then when they are retired or dying, force their children, grandchildren and immigrants to honor their debts. Krugman and Roubini both have this view that none of the spending or dollar creation will cause inflation because it is being done with debt instead of merely the printing press.

Their "blindspot" is that the kids and grandkids will honor the debt. They won't, more like cannot honor the debt. Estimates are that it would require between high 60's to low 80's percent of their income in taxes. No one is going to give 68-83% of everything they earn to Grandpa and the government. Grandma and Grandpa Boomer will be in their walkers trying to shake their canes at the kids and tell them the debt must be honored, especially since inflation crushes the value of pensions and 401k's turned into annuities. The kids will look at them, and simply say "Fuck you Grandpa, I wasn't the one who ran the $20 trillion plus debt or the additional trillions in liabilities." They will then turn on the printing presses and monetize(print) away the problem. The alternative is to actually agree to give up all that confiscatory taxation with no complaint. The blindspot believes that since they have controlled everything their entire lives, boomers will be able to pull this off even as they near their deathbed or perhaps even from beyond it.

The procedure to help one see past their blindspot is generational accounting. It is what Kotlikoff and Burns spend the entire book creating and explaining. For example the Social Security Trust fund holds nothing but intergovernmental debt. It is an accounting trick that would make Enron proud and would cause any corporation to be indicted. When the boomers begin retiring this accounting trick goes away to the tune of half a trillion a year and again, the presumption is just that the younger generation will just take it. Raise your taxes half a trillion and provide half a trillion less in spending or benefits, and no complaints or qualms will be raised. That is nonsense.

Think I'm lying? Krugman bangs the blindspot right here....

The summation of above. The only way it doesn't happen is if the kids don't pay and we've made it really, really clear they better pay. To whom is that repudiation inconceivable? The boomers with their blindspot. To everyone who is not a boomer the repudiation of the values of the boomers and leaving them the consequences of their own decisions and actions is very much conceivable. In fact the most appropriate phrase would be, "bet on it!"

The bursting succession of bubbles from internet stocks, real estate, commodities are all basically the boomers placing bets that the rules and reality won't come home to roost.(The internet changes the stock market forever, home values never go down) They've been wrong everytime. After those bets turned out badly, the boomers declared it would be okay because the corporations placing the bets were "too big to fail." We now know that is a lie so they have swept all their delusions up into one final bet where they have gone all in.

The last institution "too big to fail", why the U.S. government and the almighty dollar it manages as a reserve currency.

You can guarantee this bet will turn out like all the others. Generational accounting says you can count on it.

None of your gibberish matters. If you read through you can clearly see it's mainly your own opinion. trumptman the economist! And your sources from last time ( and Ad from Amazon! ). I really don't understand a person's need to blame some group for the world's problems. Yes humans are fuck ups at times but I haven't seen any proof that any generation has been or is doing anything different. I read your posts on other forums about how " Old people suck ". It's just stupid and childish.

The real problem here is that we had a moron for a president for 8 years ( and it doesn't matter what generation he's from ). That's your blindspot. It's also the republican's blindspot. As I've said they still don't have a clue why they lost the last election. They also don't have a clue why no one's listening to them right now ( much like someone else I''ve been talking to ). It would be different if they said " We see we made a mistake with Bush " but instead they're just repackaging the same crap and trying to sell it again. Where were you when we we all were saying " What the hell is George Bush doing to our country? " This was in reference to the economy as well as other things. It was brought up many times. Where were you then?

Also I think we will get through this. It's not the first time humans have made things difficult for themselves. But for you to just blame all Boomers across the board its witless immaturity. Do you really think we all just grew up thinking " We'll screw the next generation and get them to pay for everything! " Or do you really believe Boomers all think it was a good thing our parents having so many kids? I know! You can blame my parents! I love the logic here.

But I know you really did this to try to get under some people's skin here.

Quote:

Think I'm lying? Krugman bangs the blindspot right here....

As I've said I really haven't been counting on SS since my mom who used to work for them told me not to in the early 70's.

As Franksargent said this is old news. Where have you been?

Yes you spammed the board here in to oblivion. A ghost of it's former self. And there were people I enjoyed talking to. Those people left here not because you won logically but because there wasn't a point anymore. The world's moved on. And just constantly replying to you is really kind of boring. You won one small war but as a group your party lost the big one. It's their ideology. No one wants it except them and now they're in the extreme minority because of it. You see the game was over the moment Obama stepped up to the podium in January. I don't see him as a person that going to save us all from ourselves but at least we have someone at the wheel now.

The other blindspot you have is that if you're as old as you claim you're not young either and are about to enter the cusp of old age yourself. It happens a lot faster than one would think. Trust me. So when you look at an old person ( and judging them ) you're really looking at yourself. So congradulations it won't be long before some foresightless youth is nipping at your heals about something. It's just the way things are and always have been. For it's the curse of youth to not realize everyone was young once and everyone will grow old. Now that's something you can take to the bank.

Now I know you'll have to have the last word because guys like you always do. So go right ahead and blah, blah, blah.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

None of your gibberish matters. If you read through you can clearly see it's mainly your own opinion. trumptman the economist! And your sources from last time ( and Ad from Amazon! ). I really don't understand a person's need to blame some group for the world's problems. Yes humans are fuck ups at times but I haven't seen any proof that any generation has been or is doing anything different. I read your posts on other forums about how " Old people suck ".It's just stupid and childish.

The real problem here is that we had a moron for a president for 8 years ( and it doesn't matter what generation he's from ). That's your blindspot. It's also the republican's blindspot. As I've said they still don't have a clue why they lost the last election. They also don't have a clue why no one's listening to them right now ( much like someone else I''ve been talking to ). It would be different if they said " We see we made a mistake with Bush " but instead they're just repackaging the same crap and trying to sell it again. Where were you when we we all were saying " What the hell is George Bush doing to our country? " This was in reference to the economy as well as other things. It was brought up many times. Where were you then?

Also I think we will get through this. It's not the first time humans have made things difficult for themselves. But for you to just blame all Boomers across the board its witless immaturity. Do you really think we all just grew up thinking " We'll screw the next generation and get them to pay for everything! " Or do you really believe Boomers all think it was a good thing our parents having so many kids? I know! You can blame my parents!I love the logic here.

Opinion, opinion, ad-hom, rhetorical question, sarcasm, sarcasm.

Quote:

But I know you really did this to try to get under some people's skin here.

Ad-hom

Quote:

As I've said I really haven't been counting on SS since my mom who used to work for them told me not to in the early 70's.

Personal anecdote.

Quote:

As Franksargent said this is old news. Where have you been?

Personal observation

Quote:

Yes you spammed the board here in to oblivion. A ghost of it's former self. And there were people I enjoyed talking to. Those people left here not because you won logically but because there wasn't a point anymore. The world's moved on. And just constantly replying to you is really kind of boring.

Yet another ad-hom.

Quote:

You won one small war but as a group your party lost the big one. It's their ideology. No one wants it except them and now they're in the extreme minority because of it. You see the game was over the moment Obama stepped up to the podium in January. I don't see him as a person that going to save us all from ourselves but at least we have someone at the wheel now.

Circumstancial ad-hom.

Quote:

The other blindspot you have is that if you're as old as you claim you're not young either and are about to enter the cusp of old age yourself. It happens a lot faster than one would think. Trust me. So when you look at an old person ( and judging them ) you're really looking at yourself. So congradulations it won't be long before some foresightless youth is nipping at your heals about something. It's just the way things are and always have been. For it's the curse of youth to not realize everyone was young once and everyone will grow old. Now that's something you can take to the bank.

Another circumstancial ad-hom (deficit spending must be right and you'll say so since you are old too and want the young to shut up and pay your way)

Quote:

Now I know you'll have to have the last word because guys like you always do. So go right ahead and blah, blah, blah.

Ad-hom

I'd be happy to refute the arguments in that post, but there weren't any.

To help you understand the circumstancial ad-hom. Something right does not become wrong if...

You are a Republican...
You were in power...
You lost an election...
You didn't act on it on strongly enough before...
You didn't complain loudly enough about it according to some...
You did it yourself...

All these are attacks on CREDIBILITY or attacks on the person. Right principles are still right regardless of the person presenting the argument. Deficit spending the next generation into oblivion is still wrong on matter who can be blamed for what percentage when and is still wrong to continue regardless of who is in power.

Even stranger is the circular nature of this argument.

You forgot your principles and thus lost the election.
Now we get to try to something not based at all on those principles.
You can remember the principles but you aren't allowed to advocate them again because...
you forgot your principles and lost an election.

It is some weird reasoning that essentually begs the Republicans to reason themselves out of power forever.

I've never claimed all the experts agree. Thanks for disproving no one.

You'll have to pardon me if I ignore your personal bullshit.

Krugman makes a critical error in reasoning here. The distinction is not something related to Kotlikoff or Burns data but with the programs themselves. The reason the projected problems with Social Security are smaller is because the benefit to be paid out for recipients is defined. You start taking your benefits and aside from increases for inflation, it stays the same.

Meanwhile health care costs are the great unknown. This is especially true as we increasingly see people pushing quality of life issues as health issues.

Let's see what he hits next...

This is a bit of strange reasoning, but given the initial claim, it is understandable. He wants to politely discredit the source since the data is irrefutable. The claim is that the rising medical costs would be there even if the population were aging and that is patently untrue. Medicare is set to explode because of the boomers entering retirement age. The fact that it will explode disproportionate to Social Security is not unrelated to age being a factor but due to the benefit being unlimited and undefined rather than defined as Social Security happens to be. If you find a doctor who will declare you need a quadruple bypass and two hip replacements, it will get paid for by the government. You cannot find anyone who can demand you get disproportionate Social Security payments or have them adjusted.

The demographic problem is "manageable" with Social Security because Social Security is RATIONED. Medicare is not rationed. Declaring that demography will lead to even more problems with unrationed medical care is not mistating the problem, rather the opposite.

The responsible government has not taken prepatory action. Instead they have run trillions in debt and are tacking on trillions more. The half-truth with regard to demography is the belief that boomers can do whatever they want and then when they are retired or dying, force their children, grandchildren and immigrants to honor their debts. Krugman and Roubini both have this view that none of the spending or dollar creation will cause inflation because it is being done with debt instead of merely the printing press.

Their "blindspot" is that the kids and grandkids will honor the debt. They won't, more like cannot honor the debt. Estimates are that it would require between high 60's to low 80's percent of their income in taxes. No one is going to give 68-83% of everything they earn to Grandpa and the government. Grandma and Grandpa Boomer will be in their walkers trying to shake their canes at the kids and tell them the debt must be honored, especially since inflation crushes the value of pensions and 401k's turned into annuities. The kids will look at them, and simply say "Fuck you Grandpa, I wasn't the one who ran the $20 trillion plus debt or the additional trillions in liabilities." They will then turn on the printing presses and monetize(print) away the problem. The alternative is to actually agree to give up all that confiscatory taxation with no complaint. The blindspot believes that since they have controlled everything their entire lives, boomers will be able to pull this off even as they near their deathbed or perhaps even from beyond it.

The procedure to help one see past their blindspot is generational accounting. It is what Kotlikoff and Burns spend the entire book creating and explaining. For example the Social Security Trust fund holds nothing but intergovernmental debt. It is an accounting trick that would make Enron proud and would cause any corporation to be indicted. When the boomers begin retiring this accounting trick goes away to the tune of half a trillion a year and again, the presumption is just that the younger generation will just take it. Raise your taxes half a trillion and provide half a trillion less in spending or benefits, and no complaints or qualms will be raised. That is nonsense.

Think I'm lying? Krugman bangs the blindspot right here....

The summation of above. The only way it doesn't happen is if the kids don't pay and we've made it really, really clear they better pay. To whom is that repudiation inconceivable? The boomers with their blindspot. To everyone who is not a boomer the repudiation of the values of the boomers and leaving them the consequences of their own decisions and actions is very much conceivable. In fact the most appropriate phrase would be, "bet on it!"

The bursting succession of bubbles from internet stocks, real estate, commodities are all basically the boomers placing bets that the rules and reality won't come home to roost.(The internet changes the stock market forever, home values never go down) They've been wrong everytime. After those bets turned out badly, the boomers declared it would be okay because the corporations placing the bets were "too big to fail." We now know that is a lie so they have swept all their delusions up into one final bet where they have gone all in.

The last institution "too big to fail", why the U.S. government and the almighty dollar it manages as a reserve currency.

You can guarantee this bet will turn out like all the others. Generational accounting says you can count on it.

I left out tired in my previous post.

Meh, I find your rhetoric old, boring, stale, and tired.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Another circumstancial ad-hom (deficit spending must be right and you'll say so since you are old too and want the young to shut up and pay your way)

Ad-hom

I'd be happy to refute the arguments in that post, but there weren't any.

To help you understand the circumstancial ad-hom. Something right does not become wrong if...

You are a Republican...
You were in power...
You lost an election...
You didn't act on it on strongly enough before...
You didn't complain loudly enough about it according to some...
You did it yourself...

All these are attacks on CREDIBILITY or attacks on the person. Right principles are still right regardless of the person presenting the argument. Deficit spending the next generation into oblivion is still wrong on matter who can be blamed for what percentage when and is still wrong to continue regardless of who is in power.

Even stranger is the circular nature of this argument.

You forgot your principles and thus lost the election.
Now we get to try to something not based at all on those principles.
You can remember the principles but you aren't allowed to advocate them again because...
you forgot your principles and lost an election.

It is some weird reasoning that essentually begs the Republicans to reason themselves out of power forever.

Nonsense.

I left out lacking in my previous post.

Meh, I find your rhetoric old, boring, stale, tired, and lacking.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Another circumstancial ad-hom (deficit spending must be right and you'll say so since you are old too and want the young to shut up and pay your way)

Ad-hom

I'd be happy to refute the arguments in that post, but there weren't any.

To help you understand the circumstancial ad-hom. Something right does not become wrong if...

You are a Republican...
You were in power...
You lost an election...
You didn't act on it on strongly enough before...
You didn't complain loudly enough about it according to some...
You did it yourself...

All these are attacks on CREDIBILITY or attacks on the person. Right principles are still right regardless of the person presenting the argument. Deficit spending the next generation into oblivion is still wrong on matter who can be blamed for what percentage when and is still wrong to continue regardless of who is in power.

Even stranger is the circular nature of this argument.

You forgot your principles and thus lost the election.
Now we get to try to something not based at all on those principles.
You can remember the principles but you aren't allowed to advocate them again because...
you forgot your principles and lost an election.

It is some weird reasoning that essentually begs the Republicans to reason themselves out of power forever.

And this in your previous post ( which was characteristic of many of your responses ) was what?

Quote:

You'll have to pardon me if I ignore your personal bullshit.

trumptman you can't even play by your own rules!

And trumpy if ever there was a caricature representation of anything here it's your viewpoint on Boomers.

I'm sorry but republicans spent 8 years fucking things up and thumbing their collective noses at people that complained about it. You should have expected this.
Dishing it out and taking it are really two different things aren't they? You see we didn't like what they were doing while they were doing it. And we certainly don't like dealing with the aftermath.

What a joke!

As far as the rest I think I've already summed up the situation concerning the republicans and there new found irrelevance.

PS. And they're not out of power forever! Don't be silly. It's just until they can regroup and figure out the voters don't like what they're shoveling. Also time for the voters to get the bad taste out of their mouths. 8 maybe 12 years.

What's really funny is that all during the election SDW thought it was the Democrats that were self destructing!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

On the other hand, where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4]

Reading this thread makes me desperately wish we had more than just two political parties in the US. The way it stands now, every argument eventually comes down to a false dichotomy.

While I believe the republicans royally screwed up this country in the past few years. I also believe that they are right about a number of things while the democrats are wrong. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tease the different subjects apart because it always comes back to a ridiculous us-vs-them argument.

Maybe we need a term limit on political parties - after a party has existed for 50 years, you can no longer run people for office - you have to split your party in two (with different platforms, and roughly equal voters), and run with different party names.

Reading this thread makes me desperately wish we had more than just two political parties in the US. The way it stands now, every argument eventually comes down to a false dichotomy.

While I believe the republicans royally screwed up this country in the past few years. I also believe that they are right about a number of things while the democrats are wrong. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tease the different subjects apart because it always comes back to a ridiculous us-vs-them argument.

Oh I think considering who we had for president I think it's pretty easy to see where a lot of the problem lies. There was simply no excuse for Bush. He was the worst president I've seen in my lifetime. By the way I'm registered independent. The democrats aren't always right. You should ask me what I think of Pelosi sometime. But the way the republicans have been acting lately is just inexcusable.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Reading this thread makes me desperately wish we had more than just two political parties in the US. The way it stands now, every argument eventually comes down to a false dichotomy.

While I believe the republicans royally screwed up this country in the past few years. I also believe that they are right about a number of things while the democrats are wrong. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tease the different subjects apart because it always comes back to a ridiculous us-vs-them argument.

The entire premise of the thread was to examine information from outside of party. Most here seem incapable of doing that and conspiratorially actually suggest that discussion of anything of party parameters is just an attempt to gain political advantage for one party. Isn't being illogical wonderful? Attempting non-partisan discussion is proof that you are... partisan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1618978

Maybe we need a term limit on political parties - after a party has existed for 50 years, you can no longer run people for office - you have to split your party in two (with different platforms, and roughly equal voters), and run with different party names.

I don't think we would have much different. Most people like their shortcuts. McDonald's sells a lot of burgers for a reason and so Wendy's, Burger King, etc. In my opinion they would just be variations on a theme.

I don't think we would have much different. Most people like their shortcuts. McDonald's sells a lot of burgers for a reason and so Wendy's, Burger King, etc. In my opinion they would just be variations on a theme.

What I would really love is a financially conservative/socially liberal party, but that won't happen as long as the religious people are welcome in the Republican party. If this crisis in the Republican party causes a split, maybe I could get what I want - Palin can have the religious half of the Republican party, and good riddance.

Reading this thread makes me desperately wish we had more than just two political parties in the US. The way it stands now, every argument eventually comes down to a false dichotomy.

While I believe the republicans royally screwed up this country in the past few years. I also believe that they are right about a number of things while the democrats are wrong. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tease the different subjects apart because it always comes back to a ridiculous us-vs-them argument.

The question is whether multi-party democracys work better or worse than our two party system. Yes, our system sucks worse than anything one can imagine...except it seems to work marginally better than anything else.

The problem I see with multiparty systems is that your often end up with some whacked out minority party calling the shots because none of the major parties can hold majority or work with each other. Then you have some wierd tail wagging the whole dog because without them the government falls if they leave.

What I would really love is a financially conservative/socially liberal party, but that won't happen as long as the religious people are welcome in the Republican party. If this crisis in the Republican party causes a split, maybe I could get what I want - Palin can have the religious half of the Republican party, and good riddance.

I think at this point, any party doing anything other than either talking fiscally conservatism while either over spending by A) BILLIONS or B) TRILLIONS should hopefully be embraced by lots of folks.

However I don't think that will happen, and again that is partially why I've been investigating the generational angle for a while now. I kept wondering that regardless of religious or not, it seemed like there really aren't any fiscal conservatives out there and started looking for the common reasons why that might be. For me the answer is generational.

The problem I see with multiparty systems is that your often end up with some whacked out minority party calling the shots because none of the major parties can hold majority or work with each other. Then you have some wierd tail wagging the whole dog because without them the government falls if they leave.

Canada has a three party system, and yes - that happens some times (where the NDP gets whatever wacked thing they want occasionally). Europe between world war I and II had a lot of trouble with nothing getting done due to too many political parties, which made people nostalgic for kings ("Mussolini may be bad, but at least the trains run on time", etc).

I think at this point, any party doing anything other than either talking fiscally conservatism while either over spending by A) BILLIONS or B) TRILLIONS should hopefully be embraced by lots of folks.

However I don't think that will happen, and again that is partially why I've been investigating the generational angle for a while now. I kept wondering that regardless of religious or not, it seemed like there really aren't any fiscal conservatives out there and started looking for the common reasons why that might be. For me the answer is generational.

Quote:

For me the answer is generational

That's obvious. And really kind of sad/short sighted.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

"I am a reporter, and I am doing a story on Bernard Madoff's life after pleading guilty. As part of this, I was wondering if you could comment on what significance he will have in the history of this period. Will he represent more than a scamster who stole a lot of money from a lot of people? As Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay came to embody corporate greed and deceit, what will Madoff symbolize?"

Here is my answer fleshed out in full:

Americans lived in a "Made-off" and Ponzi bubble economy for a decade or even longer. Madoff is the mirror of the American economy and of its over-leveraged agents: a house of cards of leverage over leverage by households, financial firms and corporations that has now collapsed in a heap.

When you put zero down on your home, and you thus have no equity in your home, your leverage is literally infinite and you are playing a Ponzi game.

And the bank that lent you, with zero down, a NINJA (no income, no jobs and assets) liar loan that was interest-only for a while, with negative amortization and an initial teaser rate, was also playing a Ponzi game.

And private equity firms that did over a $1 trillion of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) in the last few years with a debt-to-earnings ratio of 10 or above were also Ponzi firms playing a Ponzi game.

A government that will issue trillions of dollars of new debt to pay for this severe recession and socialize private losses may risk becoming a Ponzi government if--in the medium term--it does not return to fiscal discipline and debt sustainability.

A country that has--for over 25 years--spent more than income and thus run an endless string of current account deficit--and has thus become the largest net foreign debtor in the world (with net foreign liabilities that are likely to be over $3 trillion by the end of this year)--is also a Ponzi country that may eventually default on its foreign debt if it does not, over time, tighten its belt and start running smaller current account deficits and actual trade surpluses.

Whenever you persistently consume more than your income year after year (a household with negative savings, a government with budget deficit, a firm or financial institution with persistent losses, a country with a current account deficit) you are playing a Ponzi game. In the jargon of formal economics, you are not satisfying your long-run inter-temporal budget constraint as you borrow to finance the interest rate on your previous debt, and are thus following an unsustainable debt dynamics that eventually leads to outright insolvency.

According to Hyman Minsky and economic theory, Ponzi agents (households, firms, banks) are those who need to borrow more to repay both principal and interest on their previous debt; i.e., Minsky's "Ponzi borrowers" cannot service either interest or principal payments on their debts. They are called "Ponzi borrowers" as they need persistently increasing prices of the assets they invested in to keep on refinancing their debt obligations.

By this standard, U.S. households whose debt relative to income went from 65% 15 years ago, to 100% in 2000, to 135% today were playing a Ponzi game.

And an economy where the total debt to GDP ratio (of households, financial firms and corporations) is now 350% is a Made-Off Ponzi economy. And now that home values have fallen 20% (and they will fall another 20% before they bottom out) and equity prices have fallen over 50% (and may fall further), using homes as an ATM to finance Ponzi consumption is not feasible any more. The party is over for households, banks and non-bank highly leveraged corporations.

The bursting of the housing bubble, the equity bubble, the hedge funds bubble and the private equity bubble showed that most of the "wealth" that supported the massive leverage and overspending of agents in the economy was a fake bubble-driven wealth. Now that these bubble have burst, it is clear that the emperor had no clothes, and that we are the naked emperor. A rising bubble tide was hiding the fact that most Americans and their banks were swimming naked; and the bursting of the bubble is the low tide that shows who was naked.

Madoff may now spend the rest of his life in prison. U.S. households, financial and non-financial firms, and government may spend the next generation in debtor's prison having to tighten their belts to pay for the losses inflicted by a decade or more of reckless leverage, over-consumption and risk-taking.

Americans, let us look at ourselves in the mirror: Madoff is us and Mr. Ponzi is us!

There it is laid out and again, the guy isn't a Republican operative. He notes it has been going on a lot more than the last eight years. He notes the behavior goes across parties, economic segments, it is the country doing it, not an incompetent leader or party.

I've seriously knocked Roubini many times because he thinks that debt will hide the inflation and the next generations will pay it back so the problems with this massive "stimulus" and debt won't materialize. Now it seems like he is waking up and realizing the problem is so broad and the debt and spending so large, it is delusional to think that the motives and character behind them are sound. Rather it is theft. It is generational theft on a scale that will destroy the nation. The boomers are suffering from a generational narcissism so profound that they will destroy the country rather than acknowledge reality.

Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U.S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.

As an aghast world — from China to Chicago and Chihuahua — watches, the circus-like U.S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America?

The rest of the world is hurting, but so far, it seems like they are unwilling to jump off the cliff with us.

Quote:

One test of whether we are witnessing the end of America is how many more times Americans put up with congressional show trials of individual business people and their employees, slandering and vilifying them for their actions and motives. And for how long will they tolerate a President who berates business and corporations as dens of crime and malfeasance? If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism.

I'll own it and repeat it. When we prefer caricatures to reality, we are screwed. When we want our real news and interviews from comedians because they help mock reality and allow us to help maintain our delusion, then we are screwed.

Quote:

The spillover effect of all this on the rest of the world promises to be dramatically disruptive. The greatest global risk is in monetary and currency policy. Below is a chart that graphically demonstrates the sharp deviation in monetary policy from past norms. Under the chairmanship of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve is in the midst of a giant economic experiment, flooding the world with U.S. dollars, hoping that flood will stimulate economic activity.

The total monetary base, already at astronomical levels, is now expected to take another big hit with the new Fed policy of buying up U.S. longer-term treasury bills in a bid to drive down long-term interest rates.

I love phrases like "dramatically disruptive." It is such a nice way of saying, "It's going to fuck up everything for everyone."

Here's a video of Paul Krugman ( during his speech as a recent nobelaurate ). He also predicted the meltdown and he talks about how some of the mechanics of regulation weren't appropriate for the times we're in. Question answer session.

Let us savour the moment. As much as it has been our humanistic duty to stand against everything Republican, greedy, selfish, uncaring, perverse, oppressive and sick in the head. Today we see the consequence of a nation that followed this perverse American Regime. Total self destruction.

Here's a video of Paul Krugman ( during his speech as a recent nobelaurate ). He also predicted the meltdown and he talks about how some of the mechanics of regulation weren't appropriate for the times we're in. Question answer session...

....A really good video and a very intelligent man.

I love it. Jimmac is Obama-booster #1, and hypes Paul Krugman as an expert "that knows more about this than us" along with other wonderful descriptors.

An interesting difference between Republicans and Democrats is that of the group identity. The Repugs have an agreed concept and everybody has to be aboard it: "You're either with us, or you're against us" ad nauseum, mind-control, Borg-like. A dissenter is instantly labelled a liberal (Fox is adept at labeling R's as D's when someone goes out of favor) or member of some other evil faction, or worse, has to snuggle up to Rush. Dems on the other hand are more like little captains of their own ships, not necessarily agreeing all the time, indeed sometimes disagreeing strongly; though this doesn't necessarily will elections, they see this as a strength. What is wrong with having a different opinion? The Dems also don't have the Great Leader concept (as found in some communist nations); they put hope and faith in someone, but understand that person is still independent and may or may not always behave as some would like, and they can always vote him or her out next time.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

What Krugman actually says is that Obama's plan is too small. It will take more money. The same thing you guys are complaining about.

He has stressed that many times. He did this in the lecture I saw a few months ago also.

You really need to get your facts straight before you post a fallacy.

You seem to be having problems with reading comprehension. Read those links again.

Quote:

Or to put it another way, Treasury has decided that what we have is nothing but a confidence problem, which it proposes to cure by creating massive moral hazard.

That's a difference in approach, not simply cash.

Quote:

This plan will produce big gains for banks that didnt actually need any help; it will, however, do little to reassure the public about banks that are seriously undercapitalized. And I fear that when the plan fails, as it almost surely will, the administration will have shot its bolt: it wont be able to come back to Congress for a plan that might actually work.

Note that he says a different plan will be needed. Not simply more money.

Quote:

But if you think that the banks really, really have made lousy investments, this wont work at all; it will simply be a waste of taxpayer money. To keep the banks operating, you need to provide a real backstop you need to guarantee their debts, and seize ownership of those banks that dont have enough assets to cover their debts; thats the Swedish solution, its what we eventually did with our own S&Ls.

Now, early on in this crisis, it was possible to argue that it was mainly a panic. But at this point, thats an indefensible position. Banks and other highly leveraged institutions collectively made a huge bet that the normal rules for house prices and sustainable levels of consumer debt no longer applied; they were wrong. Time for a Swedish solution.

But Treasury is still clinging to the idea that this is just a panic attack, and that all it needs to do is calm the markets by buying up a bunch of troubled assets. Actually, thats not quite it: the Obama administration has apparently made the judgment that there would be a public outcry if it announced a straightforward plan along these lines, so it has produced what Yves Smith calls a lot of bells and whistles to finesse the fact that the government will wind up paying well above market for...

Note that he is calling for bank seizures to occur along the lines of what was done with the S&Ls back in the day. This is entirely different from what Obama's plan is about.

Let us savour the moment. As much as it has been our humanistic duty to stand against everything Republican, greedy, selfish, uncaring, perverse, oppressive and sick in the head. Today we see the consequence of a nation that followed this perverse American Regime. Total self destruction.

God Bless America.

I think the reason it is so slow on here is the liberals are just embarrassed that the lies told to get elected are so huge that they can't be hidden away or blamed on someone else.

For example let's say I posted a link while claiming what shits Democrats were the last eight years or so. Then I follow that link and find claims like this in...

Quote:

Mr Zhou said the primacy of the US currency in the financial system had led to increasingly frequent crises since the collapse in the early 1970s of the system of fixed exchange rates.

OMG, it's almost like Bush wasn't elected in the early 70's or something like that.

Quote:

On Tuesday, the dollar weakened against most major currencies following the announcement of a US plan to buy up toxic debt.

OMG, it's almost like Bush wasn't elected or serving last Tuesday. Maybe they are freaking out because the Obama debt generation is so unprecedented and large that the Fed is now printing money to pay off government debt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777

I love it. Jimmac is Obama-booster #1, and hypes Paul Krugman as an expert "that knows more about this than us" along with other wonderful descriptors.

Of course, this turn of events is all the Republicans' fault. Somehow.

It will be because us Republicans will be the ones who declared the media wouldn't attack Obama, and they haven't except to note... he isn't liberal enough by their standards,(even though they aren't biased) and that he isn't spending fast enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

An interesting difference between Republicans and Democrats is that of the group identity. The Repugs have an agreed concept and everybody has to be aboard it: "You're either with us, or you're against us" ad nauseum, mind-control, Borg-like. A dissenter is instantly labelled a liberal (Fox is adept at labeling R's as D's when someone goes out of favor) or member of some other evil faction, or worse, has to snuggle up to Rush. Dems on the other hand are more like little captains of their own ships, not necessarily agreeing all the time, indeed sometimes disagreeing strongly; though this doesn't necessarily will elections, they see this as a strength. What is wrong with having a different opinion? The Dems also don't have the Great Leader concept (as found in some communist nations); they put hope and faith in someone, but understand that person is still independent and may or may not always behave as some would like, and they can always vote him or her out next time.

Model glue is good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777

Aside from being nonsense, that response doesn't even address the point.

Jimmac has used Krugman's name to argue in favour of Obama's ability to fix the economy.
Krugman seriously dislikes Obama's plan to fix the economy.

This is simple logic and reasoning.
It has nothing to do with mind-control, FoxTV or Great Leader concepts.

Shhhhh.... don't upset him with reasoning and logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

CBS had a poll just recently showing his numbers are going up. The Republicans must be boiling; whenever Bush opened his mouth, his ratings declined. When Obama speaks, he seems to go up.

The American people hope that he can get us out of the ditch the Bush years dug.

CBS polls are a joke as are Newsweek's polls. They are both last rate propaganda organizations that are broke because they do not generate news. CNN, a now tied for third to fourth place cable news organization does the same thing and they all dry hump each other when generating their propaganda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777

Huh?

You're actually contending that we should take the definitive word on Krugman's position from a January article from a third party, instead of his own words on his blog written four days ago?

Are you serious?

He isn't and now here is his standard response. You guys are just tired old news and need to get with the new deal. Elections have consequences. He won, you lost, get over it. Everybody hates Bush and Republicans and while none of this addresses your reasoning, model glue is good.

You whine constantly about 'ad homs' and drop them in your posts with the most insufferably arrogant tone, Nick.

This place is quiet because it was a room where you came to talk as loudly as you could. Even by the standards of this place, you're uncivil, arrogant, manipulative and simply unpleasant. You had the loudest voice and no-one want to be in this room with you anymore.